West Virginia House Bill HB2924

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/24/25
• Refer: 2/24/25

Caption

To eliminate adverse possession from the state code of West Virginia

Summary

HB2924 would abolish the doctrine of adverse possession in West Virginia. The bill amends §55-2-1 to state that a person may bring an action to recover land at any time, and it repeals §55-2-3, which currently relates to adverse possession. In practical terms, the measure would eliminate the ability for someone to acquire title to land by occupying it openly and continuously for the statutory period, even if the original owner did not act within that time. The bill is framed as a property-rights measure and would significantly change West Virginia real property law by removing a long-standing legal doctrine that can quiet title and resolve stale land claims. If enacted, it would affect landowners, adverse possessors, title holders, heirs, and parties involved in boundary or ownership disputes, and it could increase the importance of formal title records and litigation over disputed parcels.

Impact

The bill would materially alter West Virginia’s limitation and real property statutes by deleting the adverse possession framework from the code and replacing the current ten-year limitation language with a provision allowing recovery actions for land at any time. This would eliminate a path for acquiring ownership through possession and would likely affect title disputes, boundary conflicts, quiet title actions, and land use claims across the state.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be introduced in a straightforward, reform-oriented posture with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The overall sentiment is therefore best characterized as supportive of strengthening formal property ownership rights and eliminating adverse possession, though no direct testimony is available to show broader agreement or opposition.

Contention

The main point of contention is the elimination of adverse possession itself. Supporters would likely view the doctrine as unfair to record owners and inconsistent with clear title protections, while opponents would likely argue that adverse possession serves important functions in resolving long-ignored boundary and ownership issues, stabilizing land use, and clearing stale claims. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, specific named opponents or supporters cannot be identified from the available materials.